the problem is simple - A-T's test suite doesn't use
Apache::TestRunPerl, so all the special stuff needed by modperl is not
used. So it picks the default module it finds (if any). in this case it
picks the wrong mod_perl.so, and the server side ends up running under a
different perl.
yeah,
Mladen Turk wrote:
Andreas Steinmetz wrote:
Since the fix is trivial, I'll commit the changes ASAP.
Will you be able to retest upon the commit?
Managed to find the time to install subversion. Seems that the problem
is fixed. Thanks.
Cool. Glad this also works on your side of the wire too 8-).
Andreas Steinmetz wrote:
Unfortunately it looks as the http problem is still there as I
discovered today:
Yes, but you are running 1.3.27.
What that has to do with the Apache2.1 mod_proxy?
Mladen.
Mladen Turk wrote:
Yes, but you are running 1.3.27.
What that has to do with the Apache2.1 mod_proxy?
Nope, the version number pasted is in the 404 reply that comes from the
bitmover site. To clarify what I'm currently running:
/usr/local/apache/bin/httpsd -V
Server version: Apache/2.1.3-dev
Andreas Steinmetz wrote:
Yes, but you are running 1.3.27.
What that has to do with the Apache2.1 mod_proxy?
Nope, the version number pasted is in the 404 reply that comes from the
bitmover site. To clarify what I'm currently running:
/usr/local/apache/bin/httpsd -V
Server version:
Andreas Steinmetz wrote:
URL1:
http://linux.bkbits.net:8080/linux-2.5/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
URL2:
http://www.wetter.com/v2/?SID=LANG=DELOC=0280LOCFROM=0202region=BY
When reloading both tabs in the sequence URL1 first and then URL2 the
second URL is requested from an existing connection to
see patch
Index: src/modules/standard/mod_log_forensic.c
===
--- src/modules/standard/mod_log_forensic.c (revision 122969)
+++ src/modules/standard/mod_log_forensic.c (working copy)
@@ -189,7 +189,8 @@
if (!(id =
See attached patch.
For reference, here is the 2.0 CHANGES entry and a link to the 2.0 patch:
*) mod_log_config: Fix %b log format to write really - when 0 bytes
were sent (e.g. with 304 or 204 response codes). [Astrid Ke\337ler]
The following patch (inline and attached) expands the experimental -s
flag to ab to specify the SSL version used for the benchmark run. Valid
versions are SSLv2, SSLv3, TLSv1 and ANY in which case the program will
use the highest version available. This code is active when httpd is
configured
On Dec 20, 2004, at 5:28 AM, Garrett Rooney wrote:
I've seen those warnings when compiling numerous open source projects
on Mac OS X, no idea what the underlying cause is though.
The reason is that the MacOSX system libraries have regex functions
which have the same names as the ones in PCRE.
* Sander Temme wrote:
The following patch (inline and attached) expands the experimental -s
flag to ab to specify the SSL version used for the benchmark run. Valid
versions are SSLv2, SSLv3, TLSv1 and ANY in which case the program will
use the highest version available. This code is active
* Jeff Trawick wrote:
see patch
[...]
+1.
nd
--
Rätselnd, was ein Anthroposoph mit Unterwerfung zu tun hat...
[...] Dieses Wort gibt so viele Stellen für einen Spelling Flame her, und
Du gönnst einem keine einzige.-- Jean Claude und David Kastrup in dtl
At 01:15 PM 12/21/2004, Sander Temme wrote:
The following patch (inline and attached) expands the experimental -s flag to
ab to specify the SSL version used for the benchmark run. Valid versions are
SSLv2, SSLv3, TLSv1 and ANY in which case the program will use the highest
version available.
On Dec 21, 2004, at 9:27 AM, Jeff Trawick wrote:
see patch
forensicpatch.txt
+1
On Dec 21, 2004, at 11:21 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Can we use a separate flag to specific protocol version?
To address both your and André's response, yes we can. I even found an
unused letter that makes sense: -m for 'method'. And yes, I'll do a 2.1
patch. The reason my personal itch was
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 01:03:13PM -0800, Sander Temme wrote:
On Dec 21, 2004, at 11:21 AM, William A. Rowe, Jr. wrote:
Can we use a separate flag to specific protocol version?
To address both your and André's response, yes we can. I even found an
unused letter that makes sense: -m for
On Dec 21, 2004, at 1:12 PM, Mads Toftum wrote:
Could this be similar to openssl s_client - ssl2, ssl3, ... and the
no_ssl2, no_ssl3 etc? Just like you might want to specify a specific
version, I could see where it would be nice to go the other way and
remove a specific cipher.
That's right, this
On Tue, Dec 21, 2004 at 02:02:46PM -0800, Sander Temme wrote:
We're also not talking about Ciphers here, just protocol versions. It
figures out the ciphersuites for itself. I figure if we want to get
that sophisticated, we'd better pour our energy into flood instead of
ab.
Cipher was a
This is the httpd-trunk version of the patch discussed under
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=11036567171r=1w=2). It adds a -m
flag to ab that allows you to enforce the SSL version used by ab on the
command line.
I also updated the ab.xml documentation file, but how do I
* Sander Temme wrote:
This is the httpd-trunk version of the patch discussed under
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?t=11036567171r=1w=2). It adds a -m
flag to ab that allows you to enforce the SSL version used by ab on the
command line.
I also updated the ab.xml
Your email address has been added to my Spam Fighter White List. Adding your
address to the White List ensures that I will always receive email you send to
me.
If you aren't using All-in-One SECRETMAKER, I recommend that you examine this
powerful freeware. I recommend All-in-One SECRETMAKER
21 matches
Mail list logo
